(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this workplace harassment/sex discrimination case and its proceedings.)
3) Adverse action – Fired and the decision to fire her was made on June 23 – not disputed.
4) Other circumstances suggest discriminatory motive:
The timing of the action suggests a discriminatory motive between the pregnancy and the decision to fire her about one month later. Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc., (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 215, 224; Flait v. North American Watch Corp., (1992) 3 Cal. App. 4th 467, 476, 479).
Also, discriminatory motive can be established by statements by a decision maker, which shed light on the employer’s true motivation. Reeves, 530 U.S. at 148; Cook, 69 F.3d at 1238. Again, both Mr. Davis and Mr. Chan constantly made negative comments about Plaintiff’s pregnancy/disability including telling her to quit or go on disability, that a pregnant women is not wanted, that pregnant women have attitudes and hormones and should quit or go on disability, etc.
PLAINTIFF HAS AMPLE EVIDENCE OF PRETEXT
i. The timing of the termination supports pretext:
Pretext may be inferred from the timing of the discharge decision. Hanson, 74 Cal. App. 4th at 224; Flait, 3 Cal. App. 4th at 476, 479). Here, as stated above, the decision came within about one month of her disclosing she was pregnant. There were no plans to fire her before that point and she as considered at least an average employee up to that point.
ii. The negative comments about Plaintiff’s pregnancy show pretext:
Statements by a decision maker, which shed light on the employer’s true motivation demonstrate pretext. Reeves, 530 U.S. at 148; Cook, 69 F.3d at 1238; Cook, 69 F.3d at 1238. Here, both Mr. Davis and Mr. Chan constantly told Plaintiff to quit or go on disability over her pregnancy and accommodation requests. Second, the other comments that were made (i.e. don’t give a shit about your claims of harassment, pregnant women have hormones and attitudes and you should quit or go on disability, can’t ask for help to lift things, etc.) were made by Mr. Davis and Mr. Chan right before she was fired. Third, when Plaintiff asked to go to the doctor she was suspended to not going back to work. (See Part 17 of 19.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.